NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS

[FTP]

I decided to make this for no reason. It's recropped for wallpaper friendliness and uses edge detection effect.

http://i.imgur.com/fqohL.jpg

[gramsjdg]

The line that everybody seems to ignore is the one where the cladding was also meant to hide the "bristling forest of antennas". People look at the new mast and say "That doesn't look so bad. Well, it's not going to look like that. It's going to look worse that mess on the ESB once they fill it with customers. It will be hideous.


That is no joke! and you know that's just what is going to happen :hell:

...and that mess on the ESB is a DISGRACE.

[Silverfox]

Flickr.com
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8422/7721856502_5d4135cf59_h.jpg

http://ankuriview.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/dailyphoto-relax-n-enjoy-the-freedom-tower-slowly-rising-to-touch-sky-photography-iphoneography-365/
http://ankuriview.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/p2409-scaled1000.jpg?w=1000&h=750

That first picture is absolutely stunning. These new towers compliment the WFC perfectly.

[Bill Ditnow]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8284/7768762862_c75ff3578d_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/7768762862/)
One World Trade Center; 8/12/2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/7768762862/) by kevin scott koepke photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/plasticfantasticphotography/), on Flickr

That's an incredibly beautiful, artistic photo, especially with the sepia tones. Thanks for sharing it.

[Bill Ditnow]

Childs Washington Monument allusion was for the entire tower. As far as the spire being critical to his artistic vision of the building, why would he do it any other way? He may not have planned a spire - and for those who think he did it just to hide the antenna, his original tower included antennas and no spire - but because the spire was mandated, he designed the building to work with a spire, and the bare antenna that they plan to top it with now doesn't do his vision justice. They continue to insists that it is a spire, and it may very well be ruled a spire.

The building is still pleasant to look at, it just won't be all that it could have been.

Right, I'm not suggesting that because Childs conceived the whole of the tower as a nod toward the Washington Monument (and by implication the general form of the obelisk to honor those who died at Ground Zero), then it follows that the spire could not or should not be seen as representing a torch. In the end I think the issue is overblown; what really matters is aesthetics. The spire originally intended was beautiful, and it is being replaced by a cheap gimcrack toothpick.


nrhodesphotos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_eye_of_the_moment/7769522832/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7248/7769522832_e04a029b6d_b.jpg[/QUOTE]

[NewYorkDominates]

so wait, you're saying nyguy shouldn't be moderator and then you accuse him of knowing "nothing" of the history of this building? The same nyguy that has posted hundreds and hundreds of carefully read and highlighted articles on this site?

You see, this is why everyone hates you.

+1

[WorldTradeCenter]

Right, I'm not suggesting that because Childs conceived the whole of the tower as a nod toward the Washington Monument (and by implication the general form of the obelisk to honor those who died at Ground Zero), then it follows that the spire could not or should not be seen as representing a torch. In the end I think the issue is overblown; what really matters is aesthetics. The spire originally intended was beautiful, and it is being replaced by a cheap gimcrack toothpick.

[/QUOTE]

No way is that obelisk form meant to honor the victims of the attacks no way. They wouldn't make a building into a form of a grave like that. Unless they were extremely stupid. In this case, that is not how it went. They did not mean to make it a grave stone. No way.

[Bill Ditnow]

No way is that obelisk form meant to honor the victims of the attacks no way. They wouldn't make a building into a form of a grave like that. Unless they were extremely stupid. In this case, that is not how it went. They did not mean to make it a grave stone. No way.

The obelisk has had numerous meanings throughout history, including phallic. Do you think that what was intended here?

The Washington Monument, to which Childs specifically alluded in explaining his design, is an obelisk to honor the dead. You work out the symbolism.

[Enigmatism415]

I used to dislike how 1WTC looked from diagonal views, since it appeared to thin out as it reached the top. I wanted so badly for it to look like the north tower that I didn't notice the beauty of its own shape; I now think of it like a hybrid between the WTC North Tower and the Transamerica Pyramid (I grew up in San Francisco, so this shape is also meaningful to me). I'd have preferred the original base design, though. I hope I will be able to return to NYC when all six towers are finished and a sense of prosperity has returned to lower Manhattan.

[Modulair]

hi everyone :)

I don't know if you know the video game Minecraft, it's a very amazing game where you can build everything you want , using colored cubes..

I wanted to show you my last creation in Minecraft:

The whole World Trade Center, including of course 1WTC/freedom tower, and the other buildings :) :

http://image.noelshack.com/minis/2012/33/1344849628-mine-wtc.png (http://www.noelshack.com/2012-33-1344849628-mine-wtc.jpg)

(click on the image to see it bigger)
Tell me if you think it looks like the real one ;)

[hunser]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/7759928702_fca6c2c9a5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yukonblizzard/7759928702/)
The World Trade Center, New York City on August 9, 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yukonblizzard/7759928702/) von mudpig (http://www.flickr.com/people/yukonblizzard/) auf Flickr


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8293/7770361386_7a27c3f350_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srhbth/7770361386/)
DSCF8402 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srhbth/7770361386/) von srhbth (http://www.flickr.com/people/srhbth/) auf Flickr


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8300/7771948952_d3c0f84fa8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmarella/7771948952/)
Cruise Ship Norwegian Star on the Hudson River. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmarella/7771948952/) von pmarella (http://www.flickr.com/people/pmarella/) auf Flickr

[NYguy]

I'm not suggesting that because Childs conceived the whole of the tower as a nod toward the Washington Monument (and by implication the general form of the obelisk
to honor those who died at Ground Zero), then it follows that the spire could not or should not be seen as representing a torch. In the end
I think the issue is overblown; what really matters is aesthetics. The spire originally intended was beautiful, and it is being replaced by a cheap gimcrack toothpick.


You miss the whole point of why there is a spire on top of the building in the first place. It makes no difference what the design of the spire is, it's there as a "beacon of liberty",
a nod to the upraised torch of the Statue of Liberty. Whether we agree that it should or not is another issue. Personally, I always said that we didn't need it when the real thing
was right out there in the harbor for all to see. But that doesn't change how this building was conceived. Whether we agree with it's symbolism or not, it is what it is.


Vin Schiano (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vinschiano/7770577450/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7116/7770577450_f82646ffd2_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7116/7770577450_a5f0a568e3_h.jpg

[hunser]

It really stands out...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8439/7753528894_3f7ac68eef_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrjmartin/7753528894/)
Hoboken / Sinatra Pier Park 23 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrjmartin/7753528894/) von Mr.J.Martin (http://www.flickr.com/people/mrjmartin/) auf Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8291/7753527450_982cb82b93_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrjmartin/7753527450/)
Hoboken / Sinatra Pier Park 14 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrjmartin/7753527450/) von Mr.J.Martin (http://www.flickr.com/people/mrjmartin/) auf Flickr

[CarlosV]

...Secondly, from the very start,when David Child's first design was released, the building had a spire. David Child's idea for the spire came from when he first came to the U.S and wanted to evoke the torch in the Statue of Liberty's hand. From the very beginning, this building was to have a spire. The redesigned plan was to make the building, 1,368, the height of the original North Tower, and add a spire, that makes it 1,776, the year of the declaration of Independence. Simple as that.


dude David Childs is from New Jersey!!!! :haha:

anyways......raising the cocoon for the last time...


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7269/7773313914_bc0a7aa6be_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7773313914/)
DSC_0076 copy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7773313914/) by Ceva321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ceva321/), on Flickr

[NYGrail]

Why am I hearing so much hate for the Empire State Building's antenna during this weekend's postings? I thought the top of the building with the pinnacle/antenna was universally accepted by people, as it became the symbol of NY. It certainly looks more legit/structural with the rest of the building than the new antenna design for 1wtc. Just my opinion.

Empire State Building:
http://www.bestourism.com/medias/dfp/4358

[pnapp1]

Why am I hearing so much hate for the Empire State Building's antenna during this weekend's postings? I thought the top of the building with the pinnacle/antenna was universally accepted by people, as it became the symbol of NY. It certainly looks more legit/structural with the rest of the building than the new antenna design for 1wtc. Just my opinion.


If you take a close look at the antenna it has so much equipment handing off of it... it really is a shame!

http://www.wtcphotos.com/photos/empireStateAntenna.jpg
By ses7
This photo was taken on August 7, 2012.

[pnapp1]

]Traynor;5796006]
David Child's idea for the spire came from when he first came to the U.S and wanted to evoke the torch in the Statue of Liberty's hand. From the very beginning, this building was to have a spire. The redesigned plan was to make the building, 1,368, the height of the original North Tower, and add a spire, that makes it 1,776, the year of the declaration of Independence. Simple as that.

This thought was Daniel Libeskind's not David Childs. Libeskind's master plan called for all four towers to form a spiral similar to the look of the Statue of Liberty with the spire representing the torch. David Childs vision for 1 WTC was to be the visual marker of where the events of 911 took place.

[mrnyc]

around jane st
this am

http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad293/meesalikeu5/album%20seven/a4ce20ce.jpg

http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad293/meesalikeu5/album%20seven/1143f093.jpg

[chris123678]

dude David Childs is from New Jersey!!!! :haha:

anyways......raising the cocoon for the last time...


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7269/7773313914_bc0a7aa6be_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7773313914/)
DSC_0076 copy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7773313914/) by Ceva321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ceva321/), on Flickr


Opps, I meant Daniel Liberskind.

[chris123678]

This thought was Daniel Libeskind's not David Childs. Libeskind's master plan called for all four towers to form a spiral similar to the look of the Statue of Liberty with the spire representing the torch. David Childs vision for 1 WTC was to be the visual marker of where the events of 911 took place.

Yeah, I mean Daniel Liberskind, typed that quote up while i was tired last night.Haha:)

[O-tacular]

So, there an article from just 2 days ago about it in The Post. Comment there to show there's some interest.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/images_show_design_changes_to_base_A5RDHKYp3GqQR9JC2AHyBK

Heres' what I posted.

Just watched a re-run of a documentary on Discovery called Empire which compared the Empire State Building to 1 WTC. Kind of ironic sounding hearing the Port Authority claiming they want 'to get it right' because this site is so important and symbolic. Why then have they allowed the Durst organization to butcher the design so much? The Empire State Building was built during the Great Depression but was funded by idealists who kept it on schedule and saw the value in being ambitious and not stingy. America is truly a different country today.

[Bill Ditnow]

You miss the whole point of why there is a spire on top of the building in the first place. It makes no difference what the design of the spire is, it's there as a "beacon of liberty",
a nod to the upraised torch of the Statue of Liberty. Whether we agree that it should or not is another issue. Personally, I always said that we didn't need it when the real thing
was right out there in the harbor for all to see. But that doesn't change how this building was conceived. Whether we agree with it's symbolism or not, it is what it is.

I think you misread what I wrote, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I agree that the intent of the spire is to evoke a torch or beacon, even if the overall design, as conceived anew by Childs, was intended as a symbolic allusion to the Washington Monument and not the Statue of Liberty.

My only other point was that all this symbolism stuff is overblown; symbolism is in the eye of the beholder, not just the intender. If people see the spire as a torch then it is whether the designer intended it as such or not; and if people don't see it as a torch or beacon, than for those people it is not, regardless of the designer's intentions. The real issue, for me, is not symbolism but aesthetics and function. Anyway, the new toothpick replacing the original spire will probably put this to rest; I doubt very many people will see the toothpick as a torch or beacon.

[pnapp1]

A pic I took while out on my boat this weekend. Pic is from Port Washington, (where I live) Long Island about 20 miles away.

http://www.wtcphotos.com/photos/IMG_0677.JPG

[chris123678]

More spandrel beams at the top, I guess the topping out should be soon.

[MadGnome]

Child's original idea was for the building itself to be 2200'. That would have been something to see.

[-Filipe-]

Child's original idea was for the building itself to be 2200'. That would have been something to see.

idk i think something that tall would ruin the skyline of ny, i think a 2000 footer or higher would look better in chicago not ny, just my opinion :)

[mrnyc]

christopher street
at washington street
this am

http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad293/meesalikeu5/album%20seven/8ea4b43a.jpg

[Kevin Scott Koepke]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7129/7774779092_760142a747_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/7774779092/)
one world trade center; 8/13/2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/7774779092/) by kevin scott koepke photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/plasticfantasticphotography/), on Flickr

[CarlosV]

Yeah, I mean Daniel Liberskind, typed that quote up while i was tired last night.Haha:)

LOL that's how wars are started!! :haha:



http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8434/7775111450_9950a7fe88_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7775111450/)
DSC_0078 copy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7775111450/) by Ceva321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ceva321/), on Flickr

.

more glass panels added since this morning... :)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7109/7775115224_36d232aab1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7775115224/)
DSC_0088 copy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7775115224/) by Ceva321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ceva321/), on Flickr

.

[Bill Ditnow]

Child's original idea was for the building itself to be 2200'. That would have been something to see.

This was the original Childs design.

http://ny.curbed.com/uploads/archives/2005_04_childs.gif

[mrnyc]

^ hideous!

[hunser]

idk i think something that tall would ruin the skyline of ny, i think a 2000 footer or higher would look better in chicago not ny, just my opinion :)

A 2000 footer needs to be surrounded by huge towers to look good. Midtown and Lower Manhattan are ideal places for that. Also, don't forget that after all those 400m+ and 300m+ projects are finished in a couple of years (One57, 1 and 4WTC are going to be completed soon), NY will have a taller skyline than Chicago (if you go by 200m+ skyscrapers, NY dwarfs every city in the world except maybe for Hong Kong).

[transitfan]

WTC Progress (http://www.facebook.com/wtcprogress) on Facebook:

Sunrise from crane on top of WTC

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/418574_354787397931838_1020745962_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/579919_354787411265170_464278982_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/217868_354787437931834_1617759635_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/304809_354787377931840_1090361695_n.jpg

The last pic reminds me of one that I took from the rooftop observation deck of the south tower on 8/1/76 (of course, the Beekman wasn't there then, but everything else--Brooklyn & Manhattan Bridges, the then-N Y Telephone (now Verizon) buidling, and Murray Bergtram HS right next to it. Looking forward to recreating that pic in a few years (maybe on the 40th anniversary, 8/1/16?) :)

[NewYorkDominates]

http://i.imgur.com/hwiY0.jpg

http://www.redditpics.com/one-world-trade-center,1056424/

Old:July 14,2012
http://pcdn.500px.net/11553453/b78c47b00c40f7e714684702f7e8fc5a6a3d36c8/4.jpg

http://500px.com/photo/11553453

[Flash]

http://images.metroscenes.com/images/2012/new-york-city-aerial-august-2012/new_york_city_august_2012_metroscenes.com_01.jpg

http://images.metroscenes.com/images/2012/new-york-city-aerial-august-2012/new_york_city_august_2012_metroscenes.com_02.jpg

http://images.metroscenes.com/images/2012/new-york-city-aerial-august-2012/new_york_city_august_2012_metroscenes.com_03.jpg

[patrick989]

This is a bit off-topic, although I'm not sure where else to post it. But how about the underground mall at the WTC? I haven't really seen that discussed. Anybody know its progress and when it might open?

[NYC GUY]

^^^
Correct me if Im wrong but I think 2014.

[Bill Ditnow]

^ hideous!

It should be remembered that when Childs designed this, he was under a mandate from Silverstein that the occupied portion of the tower be much lower than that of the original twin towers, because he feared another terror attack. So you can see that the occupied portion of this original Childs proposal is only half as tall as the actual tower. Childs was trying to go tall without having the whole thing occupied.

As to 2,000-footers and their potential location in NYC, here is the fictional Wynand Tower, designed by Howard Roark, about 2,000 feet tall. Location: Hell's Kitchen, northwest of the Empire State Building, probably not far from the current Time Warner Building.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q-jCzjC15OQ/T0WZlE28V2I/AAAAAAAABSg/BWTw2NahwoA/s1600/fountainhead-roark-28-wynand-building.jpg

[JZeig1]

[
http://images.metroscenes.com/images/2012/new-york-city-aerial-august-2012/new_york_city_august_2012_metroscenes.com_02.jpg



To be honest, if we look at this photo, and use our imagination - lets picture 2 & 3 being completed - downtown could use a few more 500m buildings. They would fit perfectlly. Perhaps 5 wtc could become the second tallest residential building in the world. That's if the entire complex was completed.

[NYC GUY]

To be honest, if we look at this photo, and use our imagination - lets picture 2 & 3 being completed - downtown could use a few more 500m buildings. They would fit perfectlly. Perhaps 5 wtc could become the second tallest residential building in the world. That's if the entire complex was completed.

I doubt it cause the WTC has this spiral design so 5 WTC would be shorter than 4 WTC.

[NYguy]

I agree that the intent of the spire is to evoke a torch or beacon, even if the overall design, as conceived anew by Childs, was intended as a symbolic allusion
to the Washington Monument and not the Statue of Liberty.

Again, you are confusing the overall design of the tower with that of the spire.


I doubt very many people will see the toothpick as a torch or beacon.

It's debatable how many people will see anything on top of a skyscraper as relative to a beacon or Liberty's torch. That doesn't change what it is.
To me, it's an antenna. But if it's ruled a spire, it's a spire. I don't get to make the call. I think you're right that most people won't care.



Child's original idea was for the building itself to be 2200'. That would have been something to see.

It varied from 2,100 ft to 2,000 ft. But Libeskind feared it would overwhelm the site plan, and it did not include the mandated spire which was to mark 1,776 ft.
There was a lengthy battle, which eventually led to this great cartoon...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/43246164/large.jpg



It should be remembered that when Childs designed this, he was under a mandate from Silverstein that the occupied portion of the tower be much lower than that of the original
twin towers, because he feared another terror attack. So you can see that the occupied portion of this original Childs proposal is only half as tall as the actual tower.
Childs was trying to go tall without having the whole thing occupied.


As proposed in the site plan, none of the "occupied" office space was to be much above 1,000 ft. The Freedom Tower was originally supposed to have "sky gardens"
with observatory space within that would be located higher than the office space. However, when Libeskind's site plan was selected, the broadcasters had been planning
their own 2,000 ft tower somewhere around the harbor (varying sites of Jersey City, Bayonne, and Governors Island). It was only after the site plan selection that they
got on board with the new plan at the WTC.

So David Childs was not only designing an office tower, he was also designing a broadcasting tower. He chose the twisting design that in his opinion represented the statue of liberty
in a way different from Libeskinds. He chose to mark the 1,776 ft height not with a spire, but with an observation deck at that height. The antennas for the broadcasters would be above that,
pushing the tower to its 2,000 - 2,100 ft height, while the "building" portion of the tower would reach no more than 1,150 ft.

Enter Libeskind and Governor Pataki, and the mandated spire of 1,776 ft had to be included in the design. David Childs worked various schemes, at both the 2,000 and 1,776 ft heights.
Most looked ridiculous. A quick look back:


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/27581964/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/27581981/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/27581968/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/27596805/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/27581984/large.jpg


Child's original design, if done right, could have invoked Foster's vision in my opinion...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/42249526/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/41995996/original.jpg


But none of that eventually mattered, as the NYPD forced a complete redesign of the tower, which led to what we now have.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/145372287/original.jpg

[599GTO]

NYguy knows his stuff. :tup:

[Bill Ditnow]

Again, you are confusing the overall design of the tower with that of the spire.

I'm not sure where you think my confusion lies. I'm pretty sure I'm agreeing with you. That is, while Childs said that the overall design of the tower was an allusion to the Washington Monument, this is perfectly consistent with seeing the original spire as an allusion to the torch of the Statue of Liberty. Where do we disagree? Maybe I've misread you.

Thanks for the photographic history of the models, btw. Some of them with the off-center spire were not bad at all.

[steveve]

To be honest, if we look at this photo, and use our imagination - lets picture 2 & 3 being completed - downtown could use a few more 500m buildings. They would fit perfectlly. Perhaps 5 wtc could become the second tallest residential building in the world. That's if the entire complex was completed.

just kinda sucks that 2WTC will block out quite a bit of 1WTC from this angle... but when all 4 of the main towers are visible, it's perfect.

2WTC is the odd child of the complex imo. just because it's almost as tall as 1WTC's roof, and has such an irregular shape. not to mention, it's got a massive footprint! still love it though :D

[CarlosV]

:omg:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8422/7778594066_9ff99777b1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7778594066/)
DSC_0097 copy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7778594066/) by Ceva321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ceva321/), on Flickr

[chris123678]

just kinda sucks that 2WTC will block out quite a bit of 1WTC from this angle... but when all 4 of the main towers are visible, it's perfect.

2WTC is the odd child of the complex imo. just because it's almost as tall as 1WTC's roof, and has such an irregular shape. not to mention, it's got a massive footprint! still love it though :D

I wouldn't say 2wtc is the odd child. More like 4wtc. I mean this complex is a cluster of towers at difference angels, but tower 4 is just the simple elegant one.
I personally think 2 world trade center should have been the main tower.

[jthornton17]

Again, you are confusing the overall design of the tower with that of the spire.




It's debatable how many people will see anything on top of a skyscraper as relative to a beacon or Liberty's torch. That doesn't change what it is.
To me, it's an antenna. But if it's ruled a spire, it's a spire. I don't get to make the call. I think you're right that most people won't care.





It varied from 2,100 ft to 2,000 ft. But Libeskind feared it would overwhelm the site plan, and it did not include the mandated spire which was to mark 1,776 ft.
There was a lengthy battle, which eventually led to this great cartoon...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/43246164/large.jpg





As proposed in the site plan, none of the "occupied" office space was to be much above 1,000 ft. The Freedom Tower was originally supposed to have "sky gardens"
with observatory space within that would be located higher than the office space. However, when Libeskind's site plan was selected, the broadcasters had been planning
their own 2,000 ft tower somewhere around the harbor (varying sites of Jersey City, Bayonne, and Governors Island). It was only after the site plan selection that they
got on board with the new plan at the WTC.

So David Childs was not only designing an office tower, he was also designing a broadcasting tower. He chose the twisting design that in his opinion represented the statue of liberty
in a way different from Libeskinds. He chose to mark the 1,776 ft height not with a spire, but with an observation deck at that height. The antennas for the broadcasters would be above that,
pushing the tower to its 2,000 - 2,100 ft height, while the "building" portion of the tower would reach no more than 1,150 ft.

Enter Libeskind and Governor Pataki, and the mandated spire of 1,776 ft had to be included in the design. David Childs worked various schemes, at both the 2,000 and 1,776 ft heights.
Most looked ridiculous. A quick look back:


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/27581964/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/27581981/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/27581968/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/27596805/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/27581984/large.jpg


Child's original design, if done right, could have invoked Foster's vision in my opinion...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/42249526/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/41995996/original.jpg


But none of that eventually mattered, as the NYPD forced a complete redesign of the tower, which led to what we now have.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/145372287/original.jpg

They kept getting better imo. I still liked the Decemeber 2003 building. I think it might have looked kind of cool, if done right. BUt we know how that turns out most of the time. Just like the spire removal and the space around the base of 1 WTC. and IMO all of these still look better than some of the original models from various people.

[photoLith]

Eh, I think the current design is the best out of all of those. The first and second are absolutely horrible.

[jthornton17]

Eh, I think the current design is the best out of all of those. The first and second are absolutely horrible.

I agree. I was just saying the last model before the one being built, did look much better than the previous models. It might look kind of cool, but not as the main building on the site. And you're right, it started off looking very bad.

[hunser]

Thread is going to hit 6,000,000 pretty soon... :)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7270/7778755126_1c0974bb03_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmarella/7778755126/)
One World Trade Center (aka Freedom Tower) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmarella/7778755126/) von pmarella (http://www.flickr.com/people/pmarella/) auf Flickr


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7249/7777535388_305c49c4e5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewaliferis/7777535388/)
One World Trade Center HDR (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewaliferis/7777535388/) von Andrew Aliferis (http://www.flickr.com/people/andrewaliferis/) auf Flickr


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7116/7770577450_f82646ffd2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vinschiano/7770577450/)
017 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vinschiano/7770577450/) von Vin Schiano (http://www.flickr.com/people/vinschiano/) auf Flickr


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7272/7770581396_4fabeb8d53_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vinschiano/7770581396/)
048 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vinschiano/7770581396/) von Vin Schiano (http://www.flickr.com/people/vinschiano/) auf Flickr

[mheadroom]

From Chinatown, a few weeks ago.

http://i.imgur.com/OdeAK.jpg

[mheadroom]

Another
http://i.imgur.com/83b27.jpg

[eleven=11]

hello , can someone post the video from the onewtc.com
there is a video of them pouring concrete
what is that , where is it .... thanks

[NYguy]

Saw a shot on television of the skyline during the Yankees game last night,, and this tower was stunning in the twilight (or whatever it was)....



Posted this shot in the Atlantic Yards thread...

keroleensboy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keroleensboy/7354668568/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8019/7354668568_d5fbc4a9fc_h.jpg



Digiart2001 | jason.kuffer (http://www.flickr.com/photos/digiart2001/7777934716/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8440/7777934716_1f80502fe2_b.jpg



santiago's kismet (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23845180@N08/7777752108/sizes/o/in/photostream/)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8439/7777752108_72607c3833_o.jpg



This is an older shot, but it captures the skyline the way we always remember it...

keroleensboy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keroleensboy/7163137279/sizes/h/in/set-72157627723746697/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7230/7163137279_0dbe72bf74_h.jpg



Dan_DC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dandc/7778091052/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8434/7778091052_71dce43f45_h.jpg



http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8291/7773108600_cf1715c7b0_h.jpg

[mheadroom]

The picture with the cloud right above the tower gives me chills. In a bad way.

[NewYorkDominates]

:previous:Holy crap,didn't see that.Chills down my spine.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7230/7163137279_0dbe72bf74_h.jpg

[mat97]

The last beams are rising now:cheers::righton::awesome:

[NewYorkDominates]

:previous:I see it.:banana:

http://4freedomtower.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/dsc01434.jpg
http://4freedomtower.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/freedom-rises-before-the-sun/

http://edcollyer.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/edc_2012_02771-1.jpg
http://edcollyer.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/edc_2012_02771-1.jpg

http://ameliaandaleon.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/221.jpg
http://ameliaandaleon.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/365-project-221-what-the-freedom-tower-and-demolishing-bldg-877-means-to-me-governors-island-new-york-city-august-14-2012/

[CarlosV]

MORE STEEL HAS BEEN ERECTED ON TOP!!!! :omg: :cheers::banana:

300mm lens

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8430/7783684024_f9a45181ef_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7783684024/)
DSC_0103 copy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7783684024/) by Ceva321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ceva321/), on Flickr

.


800mm lens :)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7138/7783781756_647a5cf025_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7783781756/)
DSC_0106 copy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7783781756/) by Ceva321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ceva321/), on Flickr

[NYC GUY]

Now what's that steel for I thought we were at full roof height?

[jd3189]

:previous: Maybe they're for the construction of the communication rings? Wonder how those guys in SSC are taking this?

[NewYorkDominates]

:previous: I don't think so because the ring has the steel in a diagonal form.

[CarlosV]

Now what's that steel for I thought we were at full roof height?

someone told me that this morning a 1 WTC crane operator's brother told him the structure has been raised by 200 feet!!!!! I hope God its true!!!! Tallest by roof height!!!! taller than Sears!!!!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7138/7783781756_647a5cf025_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7783781756/)
DSC_0106 copy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7783781756/) by Ceva321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ceva321/), on Flickr

[NYC GUY]

someone told me that this morning a 1 WTC crane operator's brother told him the structure has been raised by 200 feet!!!!! I hope God its true!!!! Tallest by roof height!!!! taller that Sears!!!!

I thought that was impossible.

[jd3189]

I don't know. We kinda discussed this before. Adding more floors to a building would be disastrous. But if they did wanted to, it won't go that far.

[NewYorkDominates]

Maybe because the base itself is 200 ft., so it can even out but I doubt it.

[uaarkson]

I'm pretty sure that's steel for the communications ring. Remember, the goal for this project post-Durst is to save money, and the current design would not allow for an architecturally logical addition to the structure anyway.

[alex14469]

I thought that it was topped out already, more steel is going up? I would find it very hard to believe that another 200 feet could be added at this point, it seems like they can't make up their mind and agree on a specific design.

[-Filipe-]

someone told me that this morning a 1 WTC crane operator's brother told him the structure has been raised by 200 feet!!!!! I hope God its true!!!! Tallest by roof height!!!! taller than Sears!!!!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7138/7783781756_647a5cf025_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7783781756/)
DSC_0106 copy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7783781756/) by Ceva321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ceva321/), on Flickr

if that was the case wouldnt it be like in an article or something? i doubt it, but it would be amazing

[jd3189]

Went to SSC and found these photos to try to make sense of the whole situation. All credit goes to PMadFlyer (http://www.flickr.com/people/pmadflyer/)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmadflyer/7775363592/
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8308/7775363592_679e772d40_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmadflyer/7775365096/
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8434/7775365096_ed427b54ac_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmadflyer/7775368370/
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8447/7775368370_1e5508f19f_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmadflyer/7775366414/
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8292/7775366414_2b181a8d32_b.jpg

[-Filipe-]

^^^ on those pictures i cant see where this new steal comes in, the communcation rings steal isnt straight up there slanted o.o

[MightyMaul]

is it possible that this is for the large purple structure the crane goes on?

[plinko]

someone told me that this morning a 1 WTC crane operator's brother told him the structure has been raised by 200 feet!!!!! I hope God its true!!!! Tallest by roof height!!!! taller than Sears!!!!

Well, my best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who heard that they were going to build a twin tower ON TOP of the building (tapering outward like a mirror) so it would be 2,736ft tall!

:cheers:

[chris123678]

They aren't building a twin or adding floors. Please stop making these simple assumptions and wait for Otie to arrive.

[NewYorkDominates]

is it possible that this is for the large purple structure the crane goes on?

Most likely.

[CarlosV]

very funny... too bad you cant see what i can :haha:

[bigreach]

:tup:very funny... too bad you cant see what i can :haha:

Tell em Carlos:

[-Filipe-]

They aren't building a twin or adding floors. Please stop making these simple assumptions and wait for Otie to arrive.

the guy above you wasn't serious

[eseninobrandon]

YES!!! it took a long time but 1wtc is now officialy topped out :cheers:

[TheCitySkyline72]

Why don't all you doubters who think you're a bunch of expert engineers listen to someone else for once besides going to Otie or NYGuy (no offense you two it's a good thing) and just be patient and wait for an answer beside making up explanations to satisfy yourselves? Look, they have lots of things up their sleeves like taking away the flashing beacon, chamfered base, radome, etc but who knows, maybe this time it's a beneficial surprise. It would be awesome if you're words come true Carlos :)

[Zapatan]

The new steel is obviously for the communications ring or for the crane to rest on raising the spire.

The building could not possibly grow another 200 feet, the tapering design wouldn't allow it without it looking hideous, plus what would they put there?

[bigreach]

YES!!! it took a long time but 1wtc is now officialy topped out :cheers:

Where is the proof, and quotes in the paper saying all this.. I actually would love to see what Carlo's is reporting to be true,, that would be pretty damn cool..

[NewYorkDominates]

^Yeah,the design doesn't allow such thing unfortunately,but at least the work is being done to install the antenna.

[hunser]

Lol guys.

[Otie]

New steel is an extension of the core structure that will be used as temporary support for the cranes. Alan's BIM image and PMadFlyer's infographics depict pretty well how the logistical plan is going to look like.

[Davidsam52]

One thing has ocurred to me concerning the spirtenna: Those structural rings that were to hold the radome are still being shown in the renders. So that leads me to believe that some kind of covering is still POSSIBLE? Otherwise, why not eliminate the rings as well?

[Totojuice]

very funny... too bad you cant see what i can :haha:

That would explain why they would remove the chamfored corners of the base. 200 foot square at the base, and 200 foot square at the top. That actually might not look hideous....and 1973 feet would mark the year that the original towers were completed....frankly a more relevant date to mark on this site than 1776....

[Chibears85]

That would explain why they would remove the chamfored corners of the base. 200 foot square at the base, and 200 foot square at the top. That actually might not look hideous....and 1973 feet would mark the year that the original towers were completed....frankly a more relevant date to mark on this site than 1776....
That makes me believe the 200ft more, but I dont have enough proof to actually, 100% believe it. Right now, I only believe it like 30%... But, meh.:shrug:

[plinko]

New steel is an extension of the core structure that will be used as temporary support for the cranes. Alan's BIM image and PMadFlyer's infographics depict pretty well how the logistical plan is going to look like.

Why spoil the fun with, you know, actual information? :haha:

[alex14469]

But how do you add to the tower that was designed this way since the beginning? With original twin tower design, I would understand but when it comes to 1WTC it is not possible.

[Domamania]

Yes, what Carlos said i told him that today. I was in the Metro North coming home from work and all of a sudden a man that belongs in the cranes union of Ny told me that His brother is one of the operators of the cranes thats on top of tower 1 wtc. he told me that today they raised more steel, which Carlos with the Carlos cam confirmed it. He then told me that they are adding another 200 feet to the actual main structor to tower 1 wtc..

Also i asked a steel worker that was in the conversaion and he said it is absolutly possiable to add more floors. he gave me an example of the Empire state Building, that in the 70s they wanted to add thirty more floors to it but couldnt due to the bad economy.. He aslo said that structurally Tower 1 is much stronger then the Empire state Building and that Tower 1's floors is designed to hold 3 times its own weight..

now if its not true, I dont want my self or carlos being blamed for, that was told to me by a stranger on a train that had a cranes local on his shirt.....

[jsr]

Why spoil the fun with, you know, actual information? :haha:

I'm pretty sure the whole thing was mentioned a week or two ago, in this very thread.

Obviously the iron workers have revolted against the architects and engineers and are going to build it their way. Blueprints be damned!! :rolleyes:

[gramsjdg]

Heck, I'd be happy if they just replaced the communications rings with an indoor/outdoor observation ring...

[NewYorkDominates]

Part of the visual plan was to look like the Washington Monument,so if such height increase were to happen it would make the visual appeal redundant.

Obviously the iron workers have revolted against the architects and engineers and are going to build it their way. Blueprints be damned!!

Hahaha,made my day.

[jd3189]

Heck, I'd be happy if they just replaced the communications rings with an indoor/outdoor observation ring...

That's an idea I had too. Unfortunately, too much crap has been done to mess up this tower just for the sake of saving money that has been already spent.

[CarlosV]

still pretty in red.... :)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8283/7784990546_4e99b58270_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7784990546/)
DSC_0103aa copy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7784990546/) by Ceva321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ceva321/), on Flickr

[Enigmatism415]

So they can't afford a spire but they're adding more floors to the original plan? Nope, Incorrect. It's a temporary structure stemming from the core to support the cranes, and nothing more. End of story.

In other news, only 14 more parapet spandrels to go until *some of us* consider 1WTC to be "topped out" (such a convoluted term for this project)... Spiretenna be damned...

Today's lofty additions:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a191/Enigmatism415/parapet_beams_814.png

[alan88]

New steel is an extension of the core structure that will be used as temporary support for the cranes. Alan's BIM image and PMadFlyer's infographics depict pretty well how the logistical plan is going to look like.

7 pieces of the temporary doghouse steel went up today. Otie & I have explained there will be temporary steel, more like 80 ft tall eventually, so the cranes can jump above the roof, so the concrete roof top can be poured and the two cranes relocate for the spire installation. Just keep watching, but no we are not adding more floors.

[Enigmatism415]

Went to SSC and found these photos to try to make sense of the whole situation. All credit goes to PMadFlyer (http://www.flickr.com/people/pmadflyer/)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmadflyer/7775363592/
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8308/7775363592_679e772d40_b.jpg



Is the orange structure the roof that will be filled entirely with concrete? Or is the green area under it the roof?

[NYguy]

This thread, this thread....
:banana::dancing::banaride::awesome::dancingtaco



STC4blues (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stc4blues/7784925830/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8285/7784925830_c7c2bb218c_b.jpg